What to expect from the debate on the indigenous experience with the Canadian justice system

Colten Boushie's mother Debbie Baptiste addresses demonstrators gathered outside of the courthouse in North Battleford, Sask., on February 10, 2018. The Trudeau government is facing criticism and accusations of political interference after several ministers appeared to question the verdict in what had already been one of the most polarizing criminal cases in recent Canadian history. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Matt Smith

If you happen to tune into the House of Commons on Wednesday evening, you may find yourself wondering if you’ve somehow slipped into an alternate universe — one where the scripted partisan rhetoric and cross-aisle heckling has been replaced by thoughtful, substantive discussion of a complex public policy question.

Fear not. You’re still in this timeline, you’ve just stumbled upon one of the lesser known traditions of our parliamentary democracy: the take-note debate.

If all goes according to the plan adopted unanimously by the Commons on Monday, it will be a debate on an issue that, in the wake of the acquittal verdict in the death of Colten Bolshie, is dominating the political conversation across the country: “the experience of Indigenous Peoples within Canada’s justice system.”

Under House rules, it will get underway after regular House business wraps up on Wednesday evening. It will continue for four hours or until no member rises to speak — whichever comes first.

So, what should we expect to see?

First and foremost, there won’t be a vote. As the name suggests, this is a “take-note” debate aimed at giving MPs the opportunity to share their thoughts with their Commons colleagues, “without the requirement that a decision be made,” as the parliamentary compendium puts it.

Generally, the discussion kicks off with an opening speech from the responsible minister or parliamentary secretary, likely Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould, which would conclude with a 10-minute period for questions and comments.

That will likely be the format for the rest of the evening, although with the consent of the House, MPs can split their time with a colleague, which could give more members the chance to speak.

The question and comment period will likely resemble those that take place at committee rather than the more rigid and adversarial exchanges you see during question period.

As for the speeches, while every take-note debate is different, MPs generally take a more personal tone in expressing their views on the issue. They’re still speaking as a member of a particular party, but there tends to be considerably less reliance on pre-written talking points.

If you check the text of the motion, you’ll note there’s no direct reference to the Boushie verdict itself:

By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That a take-note debate on the subject of the experience of Indigenous Peoples within Canada’s justice system take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, and that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House: (a) any Member rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that he or she will be dividing his or her time with another Member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

That’s not an omission or attempt to pre-empt discussion of the case. However, many MPs may choose not to do so out of respect for the sub judice convention, which limits public comment on matters before the courts, which still applies in the Boushie case pending a final decision on whether the verdict will be appealed.

Those who do delve into the details of Boushie’s death and the trial that followed will almost certainly avoid saying anything that could potentially overstep the bounds of fair commentary.

At this point, some readers are probably thinking: so what’s the point then?

That’s not an unreasonable question given the growing demand from Indigenous activists and supporters for concrete action.

For those hoping for such an outcome, Wednesday’s debate will likely not go far enough. The most they can expect would be for Wilson Raybould (or whoever leads the discussion) to provide more detail on how she intends to address the concerns and questions raised by the Boushie verdict.

At its core, the point is the debate itself, which is meant to give MPs the chance to add their voices to the parliamentary record, on behalf of their constituents and themselves.

Beyond that, it will be up to the government, political leaders and the public at large to take their collective and respective contributions under consideration when it comes time to plot out the next steps to address concerns that many Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians have about the integrity of the justice system. Not just in the Boushie case, but across the board.

More from iPolitics

4 comments on “What to expect from the debate on the indigenous experience with the Canadian justice system”

Our governments are the ones who have created racism. When you treat one class of people differently than the rest you are going to have issues, especially when the other class has to pay taxes to support the segregated class. Biggest error our governments ever did was to create reserves. Had they not been created there would be no social or racism issues as they would have been integrated in to society just like the rest of us immigrants. (They are immigrants as well) Natives should be proud of their heritage, but hard to do when the government has created a stigma where they are classified as a free loading detriment to society.

The validity of a jury’s decision ought not be predicated on my personal preference or expectation of outcome. If the jury had been composed of all indigenous persons, what do you think its decision would have been? Would that have made the judgment fairer or more legal? There is such a thing a reverse-bias too, let’s not kid ourselves.

Yes there needs to be integrity across the board in Canada but care needs to be taken not to taint court cases with public outcry. Yes it is awful when a son is lost by a bullet. But was he not caught up in criminal activity. If he had chosen not to be a criminal he would still be alive today. This cannot be made into a dispute between indigenous people and non-indigenous people because if that is allowed that will make for a promotion of racism. Our PM clearly crossed the line by commenting on this case and taking sides. Many farmers in rural Saskatchewan are banding together because theft and trespassing is becoming the norm because law enforcement is far away. Now I am not a promoter of vigilantes but unchecked criminal activity often has a habit of going wrong.